* Peter Samuelson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> [Jonas Meurer]
> > i second the idea that debian should provide sources to the community
> > which are entirely free. sources which contain the Mozilla trademarks
> > and ignore their license are not entirely free.
>
> Nobody is ignoring the Mozill
В Втр, 14/06/2005 в 13:49 -0300, Humberto Massa Guimarães пишет:
> The praxis is, IIRC, only separate -bin and -data if there is a good
> reason. For instance, if -data is *very* big AND is a good portion
> of the original package AND is arch-indep, then you have good reason
> to split the package
* Florian Weimer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> * Eric Dorland:
>
> > 1. Completely ignore their Trademark Policy document and let MoFo come
> > to us if they're not happy with our use of the marks.
>
> This is the policy we have adopted with PHP, Apache and
> similarly-licensed software. It's bas
** Cesar Martinez Izquierdo ::
> No, I think we should NOT rename Firefox to save our *direct*
> users from such burden. A lot of people would get greatly confused
> with a different name for Firefox, even if you don't think so.
>
> *Indirect* users such as derived distributions should check the
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 22:01:58 +0200, Jesus Climent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 09:25:22AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 01:13:16AM +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña
>> wrote:
>> > to find their own (sometimes flawed) solution to a very common
* Matthew Garrett ::
> Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Obviously, I'm assuming that we are redistributing Firefox under
> > the terms of the GPL because IIRC the MPL is not DFSG-free.
>
> This is, uh, debated.
Is it? I seemed to recall that the MPL contained a choice-o
* Gervase Markham ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> >However, in #4, an explicit exception is made for program names and
> >version numbers. They are not considered fundamental enough to software to
> >require them to be as absolutely free as source code. So if we accept this
>
Sergey Fedoseev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > no architecture dependent data in it (or such data is very
> > > small).
> > >
> > > Maybe you should tell us what program are you going to
> > > package.
> >
> > That would be a good idea.
> I'm not going to package program...yet. There are many packag
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 11:25:14 +0100, Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I think this argument is moderately persuasive. DFSG 4 allows a
> license to require a name change on modification. If Debian is
> granted an extra permission to keep the name the same, but that
> freedom is not passe
On Monday 13 June 2005 23.00, John Hasler wrote:
> Jesus Climent writes:
> > Exactly my point, what impedes an admin to set some defaults wether the
> > system comes as it comes now or with some predefined options and
> > settings?
>
> Nothing, except for the fact that most "admins" haven't the fog
* Wiktor Wandachowicz ::
> Hello all Debian folks!
>
> First of all I would like to congratulate all Debian developers
> and maintainers for releasing sarge. Good job! (and a big relief
> for all of you, I guess)
>
> Having a Debian installed on 10 Sun Blade boxes and helping a bit
> on debian-b
El Martes 14 Junio 2005 18:54, Humberto Massa Guimarães escribió:
> > Firefox is free software, and DFSG-compliant: "The license may
> > require derived works to carry a different name or version number
> > from the original software." (Even if it is "a compromise").
>
> But is non-rebranded Firefo
On Jun 14, Julien BLACHE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> We drop their products from Debian, they lose market share. We drop
> > Really? Do you actually believe that debian users would switch to
> > Konqueror just because we stopped distributing Firefox in Debian?
> What about Galeon and the other
* Eric Dorland ::
> * Julien BLACHE ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > The Debian Way (tm) would be to drop mozilla, firefox and
> > thunderbird from Debian -- there's no reason what works with the
> > FSF can't work with the MoFo.
>
> Don't be so militant. Firefox is clearly a popular and useful
> p
* Matthew Garrett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Julien BLACHE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> What is DFSG 4 if not a grudging acceptance of this sort of behaviour as
> >> free?
> >
> > (This is a compromise. The Debian Project encourages all authors
==--==--==--==
Hello all Debian folks!
First of all I would like to congratulate all Debian developers and
maintainers for releasing sarge. Good job! (and a big relief for all
of you, I guess)
Having a Debian installed on 10 Sun Blade boxes
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
>> We drop their products from Debian, they lose market share. We drop
> Really? Do you actually believe that debian users would switch to
> Konqueror just because we stopped distributing Firefox in Debian?
What about Galeon and the others Gecko-based brows
Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote:
But is non-rebranded Firefox *really* distributable by us under
GPL#6, "no further restrictions"? It seems to me that if our users
can't customize and compile and distribute Firefox under the terms
of the GPL, we are passing along another restriction over those in
* Julien BLACHE ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Now, the Mozilla Foundation is willing to give us permission to use
> > the marks, but only to Debian specifically. To me, this feels like a
> > violation (at least in spirit) of DFSG #8. It's now nearly six
Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> We drop their products from Debian, they lose market share. We
>> drop their trademarks, and *we* lose market share: "eh, wtf,
>> Debian hasn't got firefox? mozilla? thunderbird? sunbird? omgwtf
>> $DISTRO has them!"
>
> Maybe my market percep
* Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo ::
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 09:39:09PM +0600, Sergey Fedoseev wrote:
> > > There's only one rule. Architecture dependent files go to
> > > binary package, and architecture independent to data package.
> >
> > I consider some common procedures should exist anyway. For
>
Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Obviously, I'm assuming that we are redistributing Firefox under the
> terms of the GPL because IIRC the MPL is not DFSG-free.
This is, uh, debated.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 09:39:09PM +0600, Sergey Fedoseev wrote:
> > There's only one rule. Architecture dependent files go to binary package,
> > and architecture independent to data package.
>
> I consider some common procedures should exist anyway. For example ones
> move manpage to binary pack
Robert Wolfe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi all! Could someone tell me if Thunderbird and / or Firefox are available
> for download via apt-get?
A question suitable for #debian at freenode (no, not even debian-user
should do).
$ sudo apt-get -y install mozilla-firefox mozilla-thunderbird
--
* Marco ::
> On Jun 14, Cesar Martinez Izquierdo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > And if you finally plan to rename Firefox, you should start
> > > renaming PHP, unless I missed something...
> The most disgraceful part of this discussion is that I feel that
> by holding a double standard we are ab
Hi all! Could someone tell me if Thunderbird and / or Firefox are available
for download via apt-get?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Federico Di Gregorio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: libnoise
Version : 0.9.0
Upstream Author : Jason Bevins
* URL : http://libnoise.sourceforge.net/
* License : LGPL
Description : a portable, open-source, cohere
* Cesar Martinez Izquierdo ::
> El Martes 14 Junio 2005 16:50, Marco d'Itri escribió:
> > > They don't care about free software. They don't care about
> > > distributors/vendors.
> >
> > This looks like a bold statement, and should be argumented > a
> > bit more if you want people to believe you.
On Jun 14, Cesar Martinez Izquierdo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And if you finally plan to rename Firefox, you should start renaming PHP,
> unless I missed something...
The most disgraceful part of this discussion is that I feel that by
holding a double standard we are abusing the good will that
El Martes 14 Junio 2005 16:50, Marco d'Itri escribió:
> > They don't care about free software. They don't care
> > about distributors/vendors.
>
> This looks like a bold statement, and should be argumented a bit more if
> you want people to believe you.
Moreover, it doesn't matter whether they car
В Втр, 14/06/2005 в 16:55 +0200, Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo пишет:
> There's only one rule. Architecture dependent files go to binary package,
> and architecture independent to data package.
I consider some common procedures should exist anyway. For example ones
move manpage to binary package and o
Julien BLACHE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> What is DFSG 4 if not a grudging acceptance of this sort of behaviour as
>> free?
>
> (This is a compromise. The Debian Project encourages all authors to
> not restrict any files, source or binary, from be
Alexander Sack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> software context. They don't care about free software. They don't care
>> about distributors/vendors.
>
> Sadly, a good example that this is true to some extent, is that the MF
> apparently has no high priority to care about distributors, when it comes
I did my "apt-get dist-upgrade" today and received the following message:
Setting up xlibs-data (4.3.0.dfsg.1-14) ...
update-alternatives: internal error:
/var/lib/dpkg/alternatives/x-cursor-theme corrupt: missing newline
after manflag
dpkg: error processing xlibs-data (--configure):
subprocess p
On Jun 14, Anthony Towns wrote:
> YMMV, of course.
Thank you for this reality check.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 08:35:36PM +0600, Sergey Fedoseev wrote:
> How exactly package should be splitted on data and binary parts? Which
> files should be moved to binary package and which to the in data one?
>
> Any standart procedures/recommendations/suggestions?
There's only one rule. Archite
* Julien BLACHE ::
> Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> We drop their products from Debian, they lose market share. We
> >> drop their trademarks, and *we* lose market share: "eh, wtf,
> >> Debian hasn't got firefox? mozilla? thunderbird? sunbird?
> >> omgwtf $DISTRO has th
How exactly package should be splitted on data and binary parts? Which
files should be moved to binary package and which to the in data one?
Any standart procedures/recommendations/suggestions?
--
Sergey Fedoseev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
* Towns ::
> Eric Dorland wrote:
> > Now, the Mozilla Foundation is willing to give us permission to
> > use the marks, but only to Debian specifically. To me, this
> > feels like a violation (at least in spirit) of DFSG #8.
>
> "Our priorities are our users and free software"
>
> Does having the
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Their trademark policy is something that should not exist in a free
>> software context. They don't care about free software. They don't care
>> about distributors/vendors.
>
> What is DFSG 4 if not a grudging acceptance of this sort of behaviour as
>
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 03:14:56PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Jun 2005, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
>
> >And how hard is that? It seems that tons of stuff in the archive
> >still requires GTK1. It would be great to move them all to GTK2.
> Unfortunately it's not that simple. I'm upstr
Eric Dorland wrote:
Now, the Mozilla Foundation is willing to give us permission to use
the marks, but only to Debian specifically. To me, this feels like a
violation (at least in spirit) of DFSG #8.
"Our priorities are our users and free software"
Does having the package actually be called "f
* Marco ::
> On Jun 14, Julien BLACHE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > We drop their products from Debian, they lose market share. We
> > drop
> Really? Do you actually believe that debian users would switch to
> Konqueror just because we stopped distributing Firefox in Debian?
Agreed.
>
> > Thei
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 02:00:02PM +0200, Romain Francoise wrote:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Toolchain update to gcc/g++ 4.0 - Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Switch to dependency-based init.d handling -- Lars Wirzenius <[EMAIL
> > PROTECTED]>
> > Drop libpng2/libp
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Colin Tuckley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: LinuxTaRT
Version : 3.07
Upstream Author : Mark Veinot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://mvgrafx.ath.cx/~vmark/LT/
* License : GPL
Description : "The Automatic Rand
On Jun 14, Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 3. Accept MoFo's offer of Debian-specific trademark usage.
>
> 4. Try to negotiate some other arrangement with MoFo.
I do not believe that shipping Firefox with a different name would serve
well us, our users or the cause of software freedom, a
On Jun 14, Julien BLACHE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We drop their products from Debian, they lose market share. We drop
Really? Do you actually believe that debian users would switch to
Konqueror just because we stopped distributing Firefox in Debian?
> Their trademark policy is something that
Scott James Remnant wrote:
Yes, that's what we mean. The reason is that for various things (e.g.,
buildd, ftp-mastery, ...), we need to be able to manipulate source
packages with the tools in stable. Note, I said "manipulate", not
"build".
Why can't you just install the unstable ones?
For comp
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Alexander Schmehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: htpdate
Version : 0.8.2
Upstream Author : Eddy Vervest <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.clevervest.com/htp/development.html
* License : GPL
Description : d
[Jonas Meurer]
> i second the idea that debian should provide sources to the community
> which are entirely free. sources which contain the Mozilla trademarks
> and ignore their license are not entirely free.
Nobody is ignoring the Mozilla trademark license. The issue is that
Debian is being off
* Julien BLACHE ::
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> The Debian Way (tm) would be to drop mozilla, firefox and
> >> thunderbird from Debian -- there's no reason what works with
> >> the FSF can't work with the MoFo.
> >
> > The downside to this approach is that the Mozilla Founda
On Tue, 2005-06-14 at 13:55 +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> > libglade2 is the GTK2 version of libglade, so it would have to be a
> > GTK->GTK2 transition.
>
> And how hard is that? It seems that tons of stuff in the archive
> still requires GTK1. It would be great to move them all to GTK2.
It
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
And how hard is that? It seems that tons of stuff in the archive
still requires GTK1. It would be great to move them all to GTK2.
Unfortunately it's not that simple. I'm upstream for two packages using
GTK1 and I spended some time for investigatin
Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-06-14 13:48]:
>> libglade2 is the GTK2 version of libglade, so it would have to be a
>> GTK->GTK2 transition.
>
> And how hard is that? It seems that tons of stuff in the archive
> still requires GTK1. It w
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 09:29:22AM +0100, Gervase Markham wrote:
> Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> >However, in #4, an explicit exception is made for program names and
> >version numbers. They are not considered fundamental enough to software to
> >require them to be as absolutely free as source code. So
Am Dienstag, 14. Juni 2005 13:04 schrieb Julien BLACHE:
> We drop their products from Debian, they lose market share. We drop
> their trademarks, and *we* lose market share: "eh, wtf, Debian hasn't
> got firefox? mozilla? thunderbird? sunbird? omgwtf $DISTRO has them!"
Uh? If we ship their produc
* Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-06-14 13:48]:
> > libglade was orphaned 660 days ago and there's a libglade2 package
> > in the archive. However, there are still 52 packages which depend
> > or build-depend on the old libglade. Can someone please plan and
> > coordinate a transition t
Julien BLACHE wrote:
> software context. They don't care about free software. They don't care
> about distributors/vendors.
>
Sadly, a good example that this is true to some extent, is that the MF
apparently has no high priority to care about distributors, when it comes to
security issues. AFAIK,
Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> libglade was orphaned 660 days ago and there's a libglade2 package in
> the archive. However, there are still 52 packages which depend or
> build-depend on the old libglade. Can someone please plan and
> coordinate a transition to libglade2 so libglad
libglade was orphaned 660 days ago and there's a libglade2 package in
the archive. However, there are still 52 packages which depend or
build-depend on the old libglade. Can someone please plan and
coordinate a transition to libglade2 so libglade can eventually be
removed?
The list of packages
On 14/06/2005 Alexander Sack wrote:
> Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > I agree that doing the work to make the trademarks removable serves our
> > users, but how does *us* removing the trademarks benefit freedom or our
> > users? They end up with exactly the same rights whether we remove them
> > or not.
Julien BLACHE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Their trademark policy is something that should not exist in a free
> software context. They don't care about free software. They don't care
> about distributors/vendors.
What is DFSG 4 if not a grudging acceptance of this sort of behaviour as
free?
--
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>No. This is not what free software is about ("only modifiying the
>>package in ways similar to Debian"). We should do the hard work
>>(strip the trademarks) so the community can benefit from our
>>already-stripped
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 11:50:43AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 10:39:30AM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > > Yes, that's what we mean. The reason is that for various things (e.g.,
> > > buildd, ftp-mastery, ...), we need to be able to manipulate source
> > > package
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The Debian Way (tm) would be to drop mozilla, firefox and thunderbird
>> from Debian -- there's no reason what works with the FSF can't work
>> with the MoFo.
>
> The downside to this approach is that the Mozilla Foundation have no
> good reason to /ca
Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No. This is not what free software is about ("only modifiying the
> package in ways similar to Debian"). We should do the hard work
> (strip the trademarks) so the community can benefit from our
> already-stripped mozillas and do whatever it wa
* Thijs ::
> On Tue, June 14, 2005 08:00, Eric Dorland wrote:
> > Now, the Mozilla Foundation is willing to give us permission to
> > use the marks, but only to Debian specifically. To me, this
> > feels like a violation (at least in spirit) of DFSG #8.
>
> However, in #4, an explicit exception is
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Toolchain update to gcc/g++ 4.0 - Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Switch to dependency-based init.d handling -- Lars Wirzenius <[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]>
> Drop libpng2/libpng10-0/libpng3 packages - Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]>
> Drop libmy
* Eric Dorland:
> 1. Completely ignore their Trademark Policy document and let MoFo come
> to us if they're not happy with our use of the marks.
This is the policy we have adopted with PHP, Apache and
similarly-licensed software. It's basically the only choice when we
want to continue to distrib
On Sun, Jun 12, 2005 at 12:10:15AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 12, 2005 at 07:49:51AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 11, 2005 at 11:17:21PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > > What are we setting out to achieve?
> > >
> > > - To verify that the person so identified c
Hello,
Very recently somebody filled a bug against on of my packages,
#313094.
In brief, the library soname changed without me realizing it, and the
package made in into the sarge release before anyone noticed. This
means that
a) (old) packages that linked with the old library won't work with th
Alexander Sack wrote:
Is the brand name 'Firefox' or 'Mozilla Firefox'? I remember that this whole
discussion started because we should remove the Mozilla prefix from the software
and package name?
That's not quite right. Removing the "Mozilla" prefix was one of the
issues that came up in the
Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would say, though, that given the great ease with which one can
> rebrand Firefox (see below for evidence), which is probably easier than
> almost any other existing application of comparable size due to the
> Netscape heritage and their need to re
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 07:28:57PM +1000, Brian May wrote:
> Very recently somebody filled a bug against on of my packages,
> #313094.
> In brief, the library soname changed without me realizing it, and the
> package made in into the sarge release before anyone noticed. This
> means that
> a) (ol
Thijs Kinkhorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(I've Cc:ed -project - I think this is a more philosophical issue)
> However, in #4, an explicit exception is made for program names and
> version numbers. They are not considered fundamental enough to software to
> require them to be as absolutely free
Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 09:41:47AM +0200, frank wrote:
>>
>> If we had texlive in Debian, there wouldn't be such pressure. teTeX
>> would be updated to the current version shortly after a release, and
>> then would stick to that upstream version no mat
Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
However, in #4, an explicit exception is made for program names and
version numbers. They are not considered fundamental enough to software to
require them to be as absolutely free as source code. So if we accept this
exception for software coming in, why can't we accept th
Julien BLACHE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The Debian Way (tm) would be to drop mozilla, firefox and thunderbird
> from Debian -- there's no reason what works with the FSF can't work
> with the MoFo.
The downside to this approach is that the Mozilla Foundation have no
good reason to /care/. They'
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 01:03:12AM +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> So, without further delay, here's my "Etch-wishlist", it's biased on some
> of the things I've personally worked on and would like to keep working on
> for etch. I would love to hear the Release Managers opinion on wh
On Tue, June 14, 2005 08:00, Eric Dorland wrote:
> Now, the Mozilla Foundation is willing to give us permission to use
> the marks, but only to Debian specifically. To me, this feels like a
> violation (at least in spirit) of DFSG #8.
However, in #4, an explicit exception is made for program names
On Tue, June 14, 2005 09:58, Julien BLACHE wrote:
> The Debian Way (tm) would be to drop mozilla, firefox and thunderbird
> from Debian -- there's no reason what works with the FSF can't work
> with the MoFo.
If "what works with the FSF" would be the criterion for Debian, then we
wouldn't have thi
On Mon, 2005-06-13 at 17:11 -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Jun 2005, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
>
> > On 6/13/05, Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > That's a stupid argument.
> >
> > It's not that stupid.
>
> But it is.
Calling an argument stupid is another way of saying you disagr
On Mon, 2005-06-13 at 18:59 -0700, Erik Steffl wrote:
>it's a bit off topic but could you please explain how does the name
> /etc/postgresql/7.4/main/log indicate it was created by
> postgresql-common (as opposed to any other postgrsql-* packages, e.g.
> postgresql-7.4 seems like a good cand
Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Now, the Mozilla Foundation is willing to give us permission to use
> the marks, but only to Debian specifically. To me, this feels like a
> violation (at least in spirit) of DFSG #8. It's now nearly six months
I'd say that it is a clear violation of the
On Tue, 2005-06-14 at 11:50 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 10:39:30AM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > > Yes, that's what we mean. The reason is that for various things (e.g.,
> > > buildd, ftp-mastery, ...), we need to be able to manipulate source
> > > packages with
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 10:39:30AM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > Yes, that's what we mean. The reason is that for various things (e.g.,
> > buildd, ftp-mastery, ...), we need to be able to manipulate source
> > packages with the tools in stable. Note, I said "manipulate", not
> > "build".
>
On Tue, 2005-06-14 at 11:20 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 08:30:07AM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > > Historically we always wanted to be able to use all the source in the
> > > archive with the tools available in stable. If that policy is still
> > > true you wou
On Tue, 2005-06-14 at 09:18 +0100, Simon Huggins wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 08:30:07AM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > It's no harder to backport dpkg-dev than it is debhelper; so I think
> > it really just comes down to what formats the FTP masters (and dear
> > katie) are prepared to
Jeroen van Wolffelaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 12:34:21PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Jeroen van Wolffelaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > The above is a bit sparce on details of what exactly is the issue here.
>> > debian-installer builds use udeb's, a
Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 12:33:42AM +0200, Santiago Garcia Mantinan wrote:
>>
>> As AMD64 is unofficial, the URL for downloading the images is slightly
>> different to that used for the officially-released sarge
>> architectures:
>
> How exactly AMD64 i
Gervase Markham wrote:
>> Is this still true or are you granting us the right to use
>> Mozilla Firefox/Mozilla Thunderbird/Mozilla Sunbird - that is, not
>> modify the
>> sources shipped by mozilla.org in this regard?
>
>
> I don't quite understand the second part of that question.
>
> I am ant
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 08:30:07AM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > Historically we always wanted to be able to use all the source in the
> > archive with the tools available in stable. If that policy is still
> > true you would be able to use the new features by the time edge releases
> > wi
Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
That said, the Debian Policy document does mandage use of the Filesystem
Hierarchy Standard (FHS), which in turn describes /etc like this: "/etc
contains configuration files and directories that are specific to the
current system"
Hi Gerv,
Gervase Markham wrote:
>
>
> - The Mozilla Foundation gives Debian permission to use the Firefox logo
> and brand name.
>
Is the brand name 'Firefox' or 'Mozilla Firefox'? I remember that this whole
discussion started because we should remove the Mozilla prefix from the software
and pa
Hi Scott,
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 08:30:07AM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> It's no harder to backport dpkg-dev than it is debhelper; so I think
> it really just comes down to what formats the FTP masters (and dear
> katie) are prepared to accept.
Are you pushing for this or just seeing what
[I am not subscribed to debian-devel, please Cc: me if you feel your
reply deserves my attention.]
On Mon, 2005-06-13 at 10:10 +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Jun 2005, Wesley J. Landaker wrote:
>
> > > The basics of the new format are:
> > > * Multiple upstream tarballs are supp
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 04:00:25PM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
>
> Nothing, except for the fact that most "admins" haven't the foggiest idea
> how to do that. Thus the suggestion that the default runlevels be what
> most people expect them to be.
>
> And it _does_ come with "predefined options and
101 - 197 of 197 matches
Mail list logo
